To all, your defenses of the chaplain are more nuanced than even the authors of this article give. The sole argument they make is that the chaplain made "statem

To all, your defenses of the chaplain are more nuanced than even the authors of this article give. The sole argument they make is that the chaplain made "statement of...facts" and "facts are not racist, and stating facts is not racism." As discussed above, this may be true in a narrow sense, but the inclusion, exclusion, and sequencing of facts is the very basis of editorial narrative. If we agree that bigoted diatribes such as the white supremacist example above are a sequence of carefully chosen facts, then how is this a valid defense of anything?